deertick1

Well the scientific method is fundamentally faith based in that we assume that there are immutable properties of thebuniverse that can be discovered and that our perception allows us to interrogate these properties.

Yes this is a very well corroborated claim, but fundamentally faith based nonetheless.

An atheist denigrating the intellect of a religious person?! I'm shocked.

It is a tautological argument in that it is true absolutely. Thats not a bad thing. Any system of belief is fundamentally predicated on faith based axioms. E.g. basically everything one thinks is "religious" to some degree.

Really? I mean he has got compositional chops, but not nearly enough to be considered a great composer. Where I find Cage to be a genius is his mastery of generating unique sonic elements. Like his prepared piano peices, as a peice of music, aren't great : but the individual sounds he coaxes out of the piano are awesome. His works are incredibly fertile grounds for sampling, and I draw a lot of inspiration from his use of texture as a compositional theme.

Like his pieces about cacti : can't remember what its called - but the whole thing is just like goopy, bubbly, drippy sounds. Very interesting stuff to me.

I have a really hard time believing theres higher quality talent in Europe in general.

1) my point was specifically if you search for a phrase that would have been used one 1 side of an argument you often get the other side if its a politically contentious issue. E.g. why would a blog that is pro gender identity related stuff contain the phrase "I dont care about gender identity"

2) so I am clearly of a more conservative bent, yet google frequently gives articles which are hostile to conservative views. So if its doing this its doing a terrible job.

3) agreed. And that is, imo, problematic. Or at least really fucking obnoxious and kneecaps the utility of google.

Perhaps people of his, and my own, ilk are looking for results that match the search they perform? Why would I care about how popular a result is if all I want is to find a specific web page or a specific piece of information...

Ah interesting example. Thanks.

Also your username gave me a chuckle

Thank you. Could not agree more.

I remember when you could finesse google for really odd or specific shit and its damn near impossible now.

Definitely the more likely scenario. Possible there is some gaming of the algorithms but yeah its just a popularity thing chiefly.

I wish google was more concerned with accuracy of matches rather than populatrity

Yeah or not? I also said try it yourself. And what value are you adding with this comment sir?

My point stands shitty example or not.

Dude I think you took that way out of context. I was just providing the counterpoint to someone who was claiming their opinion constituted an absolute truth both factually and morally. Thats all.

Huh interesting. But lets be real asjing "why did you start using google anyway" is a preposterous question.

You used to be able to find all kinds of weird ass fucked up shit on google but now its all internet based news media. I miss the raw shit.

Perfect example. Had the exact aame experience. As someone who leans more right wing, I call it left skewed, but yes you are right it is not necessarily purely left aligned, or even at all. It feels like just any controversial opinion just gets obliterated by their ranking algorithm (in the case if covid I would bet a million dollars there was manual intervention in the name of public health tho)

Yeah so thats the thing. You are just immediately assuming that you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong and a horrible person. Personally, I see people obsessed with gender identity as being wrong, anti-truth, anti science, disingenuous, etc.

So thats my point : I don't want google to give me the truth, I want it to give me the internet, warts and all. I don't want google to gatekeep the information I have access to. Lol I remember everyone being in a tizzy when net neutrality gor the axe cause ISPs would start gatekeeping. But if a wholesome company like google does it its in pursuit of truth.

I hadn't tried that particular search. Heres on I have tried and just double checked it : "I don't care about transgender rights"

The example further down about the moon landing is a much better example though. Its a lot worse right when some political event happens. Like if trump said sonething really controversial and you search for more context around it, on google top results would all be articles about how shitty the thing he said was whereas on DDG youd have a greater probability of actually getting some context.

Like when pandemic was in full swing trying to get information that was against the mainstream narrative was impossible on google but was doable on ddg.

This might not be like an active decision by google but their results do skew really heavy left. It might just be a function of popularity rankings. But id imagine ddg uses a similar ranming system so not sure what makes the difference.

There are times tho when ive searched for something I know exists like word for word and it still wont come up on google but will on ddg so, go figure.

Yeah also if you compare results from google vs duckduckgo for controversial search terms like "I don't care about gender identity"

Google will return only content that tells you why that opinion is wrong e.g. "why you should care about gender identity"

Whereas duckduckgo will return stuff that actually matches your search.

Google always errs on the side of left wing political platform.

Its actually really egregious once you start testing it out. To the point that google actually completely buries really valuable information such as primary sources for controversial events, scientific studies etc and instead promotes shitty wapo articles ans the like that tell you how to think about the thing you are actually searching for.

What do you mean?

I mean yeah a lot of programmers fall into that catagory but no theres a plenty of people in all different professions (including blue collar professions) that fall into the catagory im describing

Yeah somehow I just don't buy that. Like ymmv but I've seen exactly 2 examples of actual racist people in the midwest.

But like yeah I mean I grew up in one town, lived 1 life, and im a member of the racial majority so take my words with a grain of salt I guess.

Not OP, but would like to say : I don't think science outside of stem is useless, but it is fundamentally different and fundentally less reliable/reproducible. In terms of reliability and rigor, it seems to go about like : Math -> computer science -> physics/chemistry -> biology -> everything else.

As you continue, you must ignore more independent variables to conduct an experiment. By the time you get to social sciences where you're doing self reported survey studies on your sensation of gender acceptance, you cant really call it science anymore.

Not saying its useless, but ir absolutely should not be treated with the same level of reverence and trust as the harder sciences. People act like the government should be making policy decisions based on psychology thesis papers, or that id you disagree with some purple haired feminism professor, you are a science "denier."

Ultimately this is a function of poor education, and hivemind thinking caused by our inundation with news and various media.

But yeah, my point is STEM (in its colloquial usage) is really all that can be considered science and people tend to mistake any academic paper or public persona for science or a scientist respectively, and that just isn't so.

Sorry for the rant.

How does kelly criterion apply to sizing portfolio positions? From what I understand trying to use it in the stock market is a fools errand.

Hey there just wanted to say : not everyone in America thinks like this. there is this strange brand of modern racism where people reduce everything down to a race issue even when it is not. Ergo immigrant = not white. Same type of people that will claim that a given communities lack of resources is because it is a black community, ignoring that the community is poor and that there is a white community not 20 miles away with the exact same problems.

Ironically, this seems to come from highly educated individuals whom I suspect have never 1) been to a third world country, off the resort 2) lived in a financially struggling household 3) worked an honest day of manual labor ever.

Kibda got off in a rant there, but just wanted to say, fuck anyone who says "you can pass" when you say your an immigrant. If you want to call them out in language their indoctrinated brains can understand, say "are you denying my lived-experience?"

I suspect if you make your way closer to the midwest you will meet less of these people, and more people who treat you like just another person and couldn't give a fuck how you identify.

Cheers

Man this article is interesting and I agree with a lot of what he is saying, especially about people being totally ignorant of how deeply compromised our corporations and intellectual property is.

But wow this guy is on somw type of high horse. Talking about how a third of americans believe conspiracy theories and want college to be more expensive cause they dont want their kids to be "libtards"

And the part where talks about a kid in the US having a bake sale to pay for his brain surgery being some sort of embarrassment compared to China. Pardon me while I roll my eyes back into my skull. You think 90% of the population of china has access to brain surgery? Give me a fucking break. This is the country that not a generation ago were killing children en masse and forcing abortions to stop their population growth. Its not some utopia where all the sick are healed. The CCP couldn't give a fuck about some poor kid in the country side with a brain tumor. Gimme a fucking break. And to say they've eliminated poverty to a greater degree than the US is absolutely laughable. The fringes of Chinese society are dyed in the wool 3rd world levels of living. Even the living standards in the biggest cities are arguably shittier than poverty in the US. I'd rather be impoverished living on an acre of land in boondock Missouri than living in a 200 sqft apartment in Shanghai.

But yeah, we can't ignore the rise of China. We do so at our peril.

Hey kids, don't try this with heroin

Lets be real here, Alex has made a lot of really specific allegations that turned out to be true : he's also said a lot of complete fucking nonsense, but he never "moves the goalpost" ie he doesnt make claim A and then when B turns out to be true he makes claim B. Rather he makes claims A B and C and then B turns out to be true.

Sounds trivial but it is not. He actuall has said a lot of shocking and true shit way before it was public knowledge : e.g. he's been talking about epstein since way before any mainstream media was.

Recently he has been saying that the government is using methods of intravenous dmt injections to talk to interdimensional aliens in order to obtain next gen technology. Inb4 that's true. (/s)

(But only kinda /s )

0 but you killed some sex cells.

Really dissappointed at the level of flippant and useless commentary in this thread. HN is inching closer to a tech oriented reddit every day.

What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans. From a purely deterministic point of view, I totally see his point honestly.

Ive often thought that the dichitomy between human action and natural processes is a false one.

Empathy can also lead you to make destructive decisions and fallcious moral reasonings.

Truly though, any sect of christianity that abuses non heteronarmative people or women is not living by the law of the bible.

I know this sounds like a "no true scotsman" fallacy but really, If you read the bible, 100% of awful christian behaviour is in spite of the bible, not inspired by it.

Maybe similar. While I agree with that view, I think religion is more than that.

My practical argument is not that it encodes generational wisdom, necessarily, but rather that it is a source of moral reasoning that lies external to pure logic, which sacrifices what is right for what is practical, or expedient, in many cases

Personally, I think it would not be a better outcome, no.

What would be the point of creating new species? Sow more division and war and violence. I just dont see it turning out well. Inherently humans would be the "creators" of the other species. Sounds like a recipe for some horrible problems with speciesm.

Sure, but we can't stop those processes.

We can stop ourselves from being unkind, though